Clint Eastwood to serve as 'mystery guest speaker' for Republican National Convention
What could it mean for his Oscar season hopes?
Clint Eastwood
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
It had been rumored that the "mystery guest speaker" at the on-going Republican National Convention (which I've avoided like the plague, save for the inevitable Twitter eruptions over this or that nonsensical speech) would be Clint Eastwood. And today, CNN confirmed it.
My question is: why now?
Yeah, Eastwood backed Romney publicly earlier this month, just like he bumped his head and came out for Sarah Palin in 2008. He's long been considered more libertarian than conservative, though. And I've always liked that his work as a director has never seemed agenda-driven (even if I don't like a number of the films). Indeed, sometimes the art would paint a fuzzier portrait of the artist's political leanings. But I guess in the world of "mystery guest speakers" for such a thing, he makes sense.
But the cynical part of me sees a new film on the way -- Robert Lorenz's "Trouble with the Curve" -- and a likely Best Actor campaign to go along with it. The cynical part of me sees this as a ploy for publicity in advance of that. And in Hollywood, cynicism generally wins the day.
The thing is, how well is that going to go over? Make no mistake, there is a silent, right-leaning sect in Hollywood and in the Academy as well, but we're talking about a town generally owned by liberalism. And come on, even Fox News is backing off this ticket a bit.
Of course, it probably won't matter at all. Eastwood is probably one of a handful of guys who can do just about anything he wants because Hollywood loves him. He's in a certain pantheon. And maybe he'll get away with it because he's a "political wanderer."
What do you think? Will Eastwood's appearance at the RNC tonight have any impact on his Oscar season hopes?
UPDATE: Well, here's the speech...in all it's batshit glory:
Related Events
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| DarylRichardson |
3 months ago
|
1
|
|
| gregel |
7 months ago
|
9
|
|
| Discuss Oscars on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
Michael Douglas and Matt Damon excel in Soderbergh's witty Liberace biopicTuesday, May 21, 2013
-
The actor-director gets all the best close-ups in his Faulkner adaptationMonday, May 20, 2013
-
'Traumatized critics exhale.'Monday, May 20, 2013
-
The prestige distributor also handled Asghar Farhadi's 'A Separation'Monday, May 20, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup/3rt
August 30, 2012 at 5:44PM EST Reply to CommentHe's a legend who likely will never win an Oscar for their acting. Of course if the president loses this election I could see them denying him a nomination for Actor even if he deserves it.
JuanL
August 30, 2012 at 5:57PM EST Reply to CommentI think this could hurt him in the Oscar race. A lot of older voters may support this, like Jon Voight, but I don't think more of the voters will be unhappy with this endorsement. While this is not a good practice for Hollywood and the Oscars (they seem to sometimes vote for more pro-liberal actors over those that aren't). I've even heard stories of more conservative actors not being chosen to act because of their political ideology. I don't know why this is such a big deal sometimes, but that's how it is. It will be interesting to see if Eastwood's box office success for his new movie go up, while his chances to be nominated go down.
Al
August 30, 2012 at 7:26PM EST Reply to CommentThe only endorsement of this whole campaign that seemed insincere and more a publicity move was Sarah Jessica Parkers. Can't it just be that he really likes Romney? Of course, theres the fact that this is the first time he's doing something like this, but even with his more libertarian mindset, it's usually republican candidates he backs. It just so happens he's speaking a convention this year.
As for Oscar race, if he doesn't get nominated I doubt its political, Trouble With The Curve never screamed Oscar to me other then a 'lifetime achievement' nomination. Who knows, maybe it'll turn out great in which case I think there may be a minimal backlash because of this, but I can't see Hollywood throwing a hissyfit just because a respected A-lister doesn't support their candidate. That'd just be too immature.
HoustonRufus
August 30, 2012 at 8:01PM EST Reply to CommentI'm not watching the convention tonight. I've watched the past few nights and I can't stomach anymore of it. I love Clint, but having him stump for this ticket is just more than I can bear.
Patryk Couldn't have said it any more clearly.
August 30, 2012 at 8:08PM ESTJohn G.
August 30, 2012 at 8:31PM EST Reply to Comment"He's long been considered more libertarian than conservative"
...which is to say, Republican. Clint is no "political wanderer." He was elected mayor as a Republican, consistently endorses Republicans, and claims never to have voted for a Democrat at the top of the ticket. Sure, he's no evangelical neo-con, but he's a fiscal conservative, which puts him just where the party is today. He's more Mitt Romney than George W. Bush.
"even Fox News is backing off this ticket a bit"
Fox News has always published editorials from the left and the right. They have their share of Sean Hannitys on the payroll, but they represent a broader spectrum than you might imagine. In fact, their most popular TV host is a Democrat (Greta van Sustern).
Speaking at the RNC might hurt Clint's Oscar chances, but I doubt he gives a damn. I think you may be off the mark with the older voters, Kris. They're the ones who really hate this ticket (Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals particularly). Clint doesn't care though. He really likes Romney and he's been to the dance before.
tonytr87 Libertarians believe in the constitution, ending the war on drugs, and greatly reducing our presence overseas. None of those are "Republican."
August 31, 2012 at 1:23AM ESTMatt Democrats and Republicans want to push their own theories/agendas on to the public at large. Libertarians want everybody to leave everybody else alone, because how you live your life should be nobody's business but yours. So long as you're not harming anyone in the process, that is. While Libertarians have conservative views like pro-life and tax/program cuts, they also have very liberal views like legalization of drugs and reduced involvement in conflicts not on American soil.
August 31, 2012 at 5:13AM ESTJohn G. The parties in the USA are big umbrella parties and individual candidates have plenty of leeway to pursue their own agenda. Most libertarians who aren't completely naive about the political process vote Republican. They're conservatives and they're part of the right wing.
August 31, 2012 at 8:12AM ESTAnyways, the speech was really weird and it didn't do Mitt or Clint any favors.
Matt Not necessarily. If the Democrats were to put up a more fiscally moderate candidate, there's no guarantees which way Libertarians would go. It just happens that the two parties are sailing further apart than they are coming together, hence why Ron Paul's base was way up this time around. After four more years of Obama, or even four years of Romney, you're probably going to see the Libertarian base grow even further.
August 31, 2012 at 8:46AM ESTLibertarians aren't conservative anything. The whole Libertarian ideal is personal responsibility and minimal intervention of government. A Libertarian may be personally against gay mariage, but they recognise that it's not their right -- and especially not the right of government -- to dicate how others should live their lives. That's the discipline of Libertarianism; putting aside personal or moral bias in favor of personal freedom.
From a Democrat's point of view, Libertarians look very conservative. From a Republican's point of view, Libertarians look very liberal. And that is the problem right there, because it just shows how far the sides are drifting from the middle.
On a pure surface level, I've already seen people get up in arms about Clint Eastwood speaking at the RNC, and now he's the devil to them. Even though he's pro-gay marriage, pro-choice and anti-war. The whole concept of 'sides' is why America is in this mess.
Al
August 30, 2012 at 11:44PM EST Reply to CommentOkay, at least in my circle (which includes eastwood fans) there is already a backlash. wow.
Joe7827
August 31, 2012 at 10:10AM EST Reply to CommentYou know, based on this article, it's really unclear to me what Kris' political leanings are.
In all seriousness... I'm not sure I understand the cynicism. As was pointed out in the Off the Carpet column, Clint has released not one, but two Best Picture winners on election years. (He also released two movies in 2008.) Wouldn't those have been better times to use something like this to promote a movie? I'm not sure why he would do it for what looks to be a fairly light, politics-free dramedy.
Guest Guesto It seems to me that Kris' cynicism may be in part to his desire to think that Clint (for whom he has a certain amount of respect for) really doesn't mean what he is saying. Like his using the RNC to promote his movie, which, while seemingly apolitical, is, on the whole, aimed at more conservative segment of moviegoers, would be the lesser evil. If so, I can certainly understand. I'm not really an Eastwood fan but I'd rather he didn't fully mean what he said. I just don't think that this is actually the case.
August 31, 2012 at 11:04AM ESTIn many ways, Clint's motivations for his speech are irrelevant. I doubt he really misrepresented his political views by appearing at the convention. He's been too consistent on that front and his actual speech isn't too far off from remarks he's been making in the press for months now.
If anything, he seemed more fake before, when he tried to pretend to be coy and not have a problem with Obama.
That, plus the aforementioned comments about Sarah Palin (which, really, has to be considered a litmus test) point a picture of someone who is very much smitten with the Republican party.
So much so, in fact, that he's willing to support it through its any manifestations. And I do believe that the party is becoming more extremist, in the worst possible ways.
And if Libertarians are anything, at their very heart they are extremists. Libertarians scare more than general Republicans do. At least you typical conservative is more or less open about their greed. With Libertarians I often gets a sense of near-religious fervor and entirely unearned self-righteousness. These people have no clue what it takes to make things work in the real world. And reading Matt’s idealized representation of how Liberations think is both painful and a reminder of that sort of roboticism.
Anyway, can we please stop feigning surprise now? Clint’s political views shouldn’t come to anyone as a surprise. And no matter what your views are, can we stop using the he’s not really *this* he’s *that* as an excuse? Reminds me of when people actually thought McCain was a “maverick”. He’s anything but.
Kristopher Tapley He'd sure love to win that Best Actor Oscar...
August 31, 2012 at 1:19PM ESTAl The speech wasn't near as bad as everyone is trying so hard to make it out to be. Did the chair bit fall flat? I guess, I honestly didn't think it was so terrible. But it was a bit, and pretending that he was crazy or senile rather then just seeing it as a joke that didn't resonate is extraordinarily unfair.
August 31, 2012 at 3:06PM EST